Walking and Daily Affect Among Sedentary Older Adults Measured Using the StepMATE App: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although fitness technology can track and encourage increases in physical activity, few smartphone apps are based on behavior change theories. Apps that do include behavioral components tend to be costly and often do not include strategies to help those who are unsure of how to increase their physical activity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study is to test the efficacy of a new app, StepMATE, for increasing daily walking in a sample of inactive adults and to examine daily relationships between walking and self-reported mood and energy. METHODS: The participants were middle-aged and older adults aged ≥50 years (mean 61.64, SD 7.67 years). They were randomly assigned to receive either a basic, pedometer-like version of the app or a version with supports to help them determine where, when, and with whom to walk. Of the 96 participants randomized to 1 of 2 conditions, 87 (91%) completed pretest assessments and 81 (84%) successfully downloaded the app. Upon downloading the app, step data from the week prior were automatically recorded. The participants in both groups were asked to set a daily walking goal, which they could change at any point during the intervention. They were asked to use the app as much as possible over the next 4 weeks. Twice per day, pop-up notifications assessed mood and energy levels. RESULTS: Although one group had access to additional app features, both groups used the app in a similar way, mainly using just the walk-tracking feature. Multilevel models revealed that both groups took significantly more steps during the 4-week study than during the week before downloading the app (γ=0.24; P<.001). During the study, the participants in both groups averaged 5248 steps per day compared with an average of 3753 steps per day during the baseline week. Contrary to predictions, there were no differences in step increases between the two conditions. Cognition significantly improved from pre- to posttest (γ=0.17; P=.02). Across conditions, on days in which the participants took more steps than average, they reported better mood and higher energy levels on the same day and better mood on the subsequent day. Daily associations among walking, mood, and energy were significant for women but not for men and were stronger for older participants (those aged ≥62 years) than for the younger participants. CONCLUSIONS: Both groups increased their steps to a similar extent, suggesting that setting and monitoring daily walking goals was sufficient for an initial increase and maintenance of steps. Across conditions, walking had benefits for positive mood and energy levels, particularly for women and older participants. Further investigations should identify other motivating factors that could lead to greater and more sustained increases in physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03124537; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03124537.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".